nationalsecuritylaw NSL-related events to put on your calendar if you are going to AALS in January

December 23, 2010

* NSL-events to put on your calendar if you are going to the AALS annual meeting in San Fran in January

Are you a law prof going to the AALS annual meeting in San Francisco in January? If so, put all of this on your calendar!

Friday January 7th

2:15-3:30

Impromptu Roundtable

There’s nothing particularly relevant for national security law on Friday the 7th (so far as I know), so Steve Vladeck and I thought it would be fun to have an impromptu roundtable to talk about issues such as targeted killing, wikileaks, and, as always, GTMO. No location selected yet, but if you are interested let me know so I can tell you where we end up going.

Saturday January 8th

8:30-10:15

Section on Fed Courts, “The Roberts Court and Official Immunity Doctrine” (apropos of the al Kidd litigation)

or

Section on Immigration Law, “Due Process in the Era of Mass Immigration Detention”

10:30-12:15

Committee on Research, “Book Publishing Workshop”

Granted, the connection to NSL here is thin, but I include this both because it is inherently interesting and because several of the editors on the panel have at least some interest in this topic and hence you might want to meet them to discuss any NSL-related book ideas you may have.

12:15-1:30

Section on National Security Law Luncheon (Note- need a ticket for this one. Well worth it though; aside from being an amazing scholar, Trevor served in the White House Counsel’s Office over the past two years)

Keynote Speaker: Trevor W. Morrison, Columbia Law School, “Thoughts on Detention, Law, and the Courts”

Date & Time: Saturday, January 8, 12:15 – 1:15 p.m.

Location: Parc 55, Stockton Room (4th Floor)

1:30-3:15

Section on National Security Law, “The Relationship Between Military Justice, Civil/Military Relations, and National Security Law”

Topic: “The Relationship Between Military Justice, Civil/Military Relations, and National Security Law “

Date & Time: Saturday, January 8, 1:30 – 3:15 p.m.

Location: Hotel Nikko, Peninsula Room (25th Floor)

Moderator:

Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law

Speakers:

Mario L. Barnes, University of California, Irvine Donald Bren School of Law

Eugene R. Fidell, Yale Law School

Elizabeth L. Hillman, University of California Hastings College of the Law

Diane H. Mazur, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law

Description: Although military law and justice issues are at the core of many contemporary national security debates, they tend to get short shrift in academic discourse. This panel of experts—each of whom has served as either a uniformed or civilian military lawyer—will attempt to rectify that shortcoming, covering topics including the current state of civil/military relations; the ongoing controversy over stop-loss; the continuing implications of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; current issues in the military criminal justice system; and the more general relationship between military law and national security law today. Separate from these individual topics, the panel will focus more generally on the state of military law, and on areas for both substantive and pedagogical reform going forward.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.


nationalsecuritylaw United States v. Abu-Jihaad (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2010) (affirming conviction)

December 23, 2010

* United States v. Abu-Jihaad (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2010) (affirming conviction)

The 2nd Circuit has affirmed the conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad (formerly known as Paul Hall) in connection with the disclosure of national defense information (involving the movements of a Navy battlegroup) to a UK resident involved in an online extremist publication. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by not suppressing FISA-derived evidence (either because FISA is unconstitutional or because the government failed to comply with it), that various other evidentiary rulings were erroneous to the point of denying him a fair trial, that the evidence in any event was inadequate to support the conviction, and that various CIPA orders were an abuse of discretion. In an opinion by Judge Raggi (joined by Judges Hall and Chin), the panel rejected all of these arguments.